User talk:Kwamikagami/Automated archive

Nomination of Finnic peoples for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Finnic peoples, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnic peoples until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Raven

Hello and thank you for your edits on the article about "The Raven". I'm not seeing any visual difference between the symbols for stress vs. unstressed syllables you added to the chart; it seems far too subtle. Are you sure it's an improvement? Would you be willing to allow it to be restored to the previous symbols? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

They're standard, but I'll try something else. If that doesn't work, go ahead and revert. — kwami (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

New surface feature names for Didymos and Dimorphos

Hi,

I didn't find out about this until today, but two months ago, the IAU WGPSN announced 2 new boulder names for Didymos and 6 new crater names for Dimorphos. I don't have much time to edit articles nowadays, so do you mind adding these into their articles? For your convenience, I've compiled a list of the name meanings from the WGPSN website below. Thanks.

Dimorhpos

• Tamboril Crater = Uruguay; barrel-shaped drum used to play the Candombe music, a style created by African slaves.
• Naqqara Crater = Drum of the Near and Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Turkey), and India; pair of clay or metal kettle drums of various sizes played with curved beaters.
• Msondo Crater = Tanzania; tall cylindrically shaped drum for important rituals, which “drives” the dance.
• Bongo Crater = Afro-Cuban; a pair of open bottomed drums played with both hands.
• Marimba Crater = Percussion musical instrument popular in Guatemala and other Central and NW South American countries; wooden bars with pipe or gourd resonators, struck by yarn wrapped or rubber mallets. Originally developed in Africa. Marimba was proclaimed the national instrument of Guatemala in its independence proclamation.
• Bala Crater = West African gourd-resonated xylophone (Guinea, Senegal, Mali).

Didymos

• Gong Saxum = Indonesian name of a percussion musical instrument popular in East and South East Asia, a circular metal disk with a definite or indefinite pitch, which is hung vertically and hit in the center by a soft beater; originated in Ancient China.
• Carillon Saxum = Belgium, Netherlands, France; a percussion instrument of at least 23 cast bronze bells in fixed suspension.

Nrco0e (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. — kwami (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the Iridian crater names have still not been approved. (At least my proposal for Arrokoth was accepted! It's not just for 'sky', but recalls the Ouroboros.) — kwami (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Very cool! Double sharp (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about Regular Expressions in JWB

No idea if you're the right person to ask about this, but you could be so I'll ask anyways. I often add IPA link templates to IPA phonological tables (something like [1] or [2]). These edits are horribly tedious, and one of the reasons that I requested AWB (and got it) was to make this tedious process faster. (BTW, I use JWB simply because I don't have a Windows computer.)

However, when trying to replace any {{IPA| with {{IPA link|, IPA templates outside the phonological tables also get converted into IPA link templates. Since I am not at all good at regular expressions or coding, I'd like your help (if you can give it of course) to make a regular expression, that I could put in JWB's RegEx section, that only affects IPA templates in tables.

Thanks for any help you can give. User:PharyngealImplosive7

Hi. I know you can do that in AWB (you can specify that edits should only occur in templates that contain certain text), but last time I checked, you couldn't in JWB, which is less powerful. User:Joeytje50, the creator of JWB, is usually pretty good about answering questions, though. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

elements beyond 172

If it interests you, there's a recent paper that treats the situation once 1s falls into the negative continuum in some detail. In brief, mathematically it wouldn't be the end of the story, although some more work is needed to calculate multi-electron systems and extend the PT further. But also, it seems that it might end up rather as a shaggy dog story, because probably half-lives plummet right after the first island. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Will take a look. — kwami (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation of elements, again

Looking at copernicium's WP page again, I'm surprised the pronunciation starting like "copper" isn't there. Double sharp (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That was my first instinct too, but I haven't heard it pronounced that way, only as "coper". I think I might've even added "copper" in at one point and then removed it as unattested. — kwami (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Huh, that's weird. But good to know the reason.

At least, while trying to Google for this, I found the minutes of the relevant IUPAC Division VIII meeting that mentions the symbol controversy (Cp vs Cn). I've updated our article; so, this was still worth looking into for a different reason. (Though it didn't stop them from letting Ts be reused as tennessine when it's already tosyl. Ah well, Ac and Pr also have double meanings, and it's not like there is any other good symbol for 117 when Tn is already thoron.) :) Double sharp (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wagiman language

Wagiman language has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Solar System navmap 2

Template:Solar System navmap 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Gorap language sock?

Any thoughts on who the master of the new editor at Gorap language might be? Their edit summaries suggest that this isn't their first account. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill: kwami made me aware about this last week. On a second glance, I'm sure it's User:Eiskrahablo. Check e.g. the opening sentence in the lede of this[3] version of Kangean language. The phrasing is almost identical, also the composition of the infobox (these regional languages do not have "recognized minority" status, nor are they "regulated" in any way by said agency). Should I file an SPI or can you do a DUCK-block? –Austronesier (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Austronesier, I think this is a duck case, and the last case on the SPI page is old enough that I don't think a CU would be able to help. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tacuate (disambiguation)

The article Tacuate (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Please use edit summaries, especially when editing templates. See WP:FIES. To avoid accidentally leaving edit summaries blank, registered editors can select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" on the Editing tab of the user preferences.

I don't think I've ever seen |image_scale= before; it strikes me as non-standard and confusing, and it looks like the documentation hasn't been updated. If you're going to introduce a non-standard infobox parameter, please document it. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been leaving edit summaries, but that one slipped through. Sometimes I hit the 'enter' key inadvertently before finishing.

I did update the documentation. There was nothing to update: that parameter was not included. I've now added it in.

If you prefer a different name, I'm open to suggestions. "Image_upright" is even more confusing, because the images generally aren't upright. There's been discussion on whether to change "upright" to "scale" in our file params, but I don't know how far it's gotten. — kwami (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The commonly used |image_upright= matches the long-standing syntax explained in detail at MOS:UPRIGHT, and it makes sense since it is passed to the upright value in Module:InfoboxImage. "upright" is a strange word to have chosen a long time ago, but I think we're stuck with it. Adding a new synonym seems like muddying the waters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Turkey NATO

Hi, What is your source that Turkey has formally deposited its instruments of ratification in Washington? The State Department website has not been updated to show that. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The ref is in the article. If it seems suspicious, you can bring it up for discussion on the talk page, but I didn't see anything that made me suspicious. — kwami (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll continue this there, I didn't see that you posted there. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Puzzling addition to Bengali alphabet

In this edit to Bengali alphabet you added a sentence fragment with a {{what}} template and without a source. Can you clarify what you meant by the addition? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've seen that described as a "section mark", but don't know what that means. I was hoping that an edtor who did know would describe it. Perhaps I should've raised it on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find out next time I'm at a suitable library. Meanwhile, I've taken the liberty of moving your question from within the article to Talk:Bengali alphabet. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Zulu Phonology

Hello! I noticed a bunch of weirdness on the phonology section of the Zulu page, and it seems like you were the one who added it (here)? I don't know anything about Zulu but it was weird enough to make me really suspicious.

1. There are a bunch of consonants labeled as "slack-voiced", but they're labeled using the breathy-voiced diacritic in the IPA? There's also a glottal fricative which is in the same row but uses the correct slack-voiced diacritic.

2. The clicks are also described as "slack-voiced", but use a different, again incorrect breathy-voice diacritic (see /ᶢǀʱ/). The table also describes some of them as "ejective" but doesn't explain what that means. Wikipedia lists two types of "ejective clicks", and neither seems to match exactly what's represented in the table.

3. There aren't any sources explicitly cited for the consonants, and the sources I have found don't seem to support a lot of the stuff in the table. I couldn't find evidence of a slack-voice distinction (or breathy-voiced, for that matter) or a velar implosive, while I did find at least one source claiming a tenuis /k/ which isn't mentioned in the table. (This source is Doke's 1986 "Textbook of Zulu Grammar")

After looking at your user page, it seems like you've made a ton of valuable contributions to a bunch of different linguistics pages, and I'm only an amateur. So I assume you've got some good reasons for this. But I'd definitely like to know what they are, because this page badly needs at least some clarification.

Thanks! Geckoarcher (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right that the diacritics don't match the labels exactly. I've had a hard time finding reliable sources, and this table is to some extent a composite. I'll try to find something better. Doke, BTW, is from the 1920s; he was just reprinted in 1986. — kwami (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the response. I also had a hard time getting good sources, I could tell that the Doke was old but I just couldn't find anything else with a description of the whole phonology! Geckoarcher (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Poulos et al 1998 distinguish breathy-voiced and slack-voiced consonants. But someone forgot to add the diacritics to the consonant table. — kwami (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I made some minor fixes. I suspect Taljaard& Bosch (1998) Handbook of Isizulu might be a good ref, and maybe Mbeje (2005) Zulu Learners' Reference Grammar -- at least, I've checked a dozen others and none of them were worthwhile -- but I haven't been able to locate copies yet. — kwami (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Does Poulos claim breathy or slack-voice? The diacritics in the table still seem to conflict. (Sorry I can't check it myself, the closest copy I could find is a little over 200 miles away...)

Also, is that a "voiced" diacritic on /k/ (aka the same as /g/)? Why is it in the implosive row? Geckoarcher (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Because I haven't moved it. I'd like to confirm what it is. But Poulos does claim it has the same phonation as implosive b. I suppose I should change it to plain [g] -- the point is that it's not breathy voice, which Poulos generally doesn't use a diacritic for. But they do say it's partially voiced. Really, we need additional sources.

Poulos et al. say there's breathy voice and delayed breathy voice. They transcribe the latter with a voiceless ring. It's not audible on the consonant but only on the following vowel. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Rashi language

Hi!

The article Haya language says: "Maho (2009) classifies JE221 Rashi as closest to Haya."

You've created Rashi language, which redirects to Haya language.

I don't see "Rashi language" in Ethnologue, or pretty much anywhere else online.

Do you have that Maho book?

I guess it's OK to keep Rashi language as a redirect to Haya if Rashi is a dialect of Haya, but the text should clarify that this is indeed the case. The current text makes the reader think that Rashi is another related language.

Also, it could probably be mentioned on Rashi (disambiguation).

So if you have access to that book, it would be great to clarify that.

Thanks! Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a separate language according to Maho. I rd'd it to Haya because it's not a separate language per Ethnologue, which is the default we go by when we don't have something better. I don't know that Maho is necessarily more reliable. (It's not a book, BTW, but a set of maps for all the Bantu languages.) If we find something, then we should turn Rashi into its own article, but meanwhile it appears to be one of hundreds of cases where the language-dialect distinction is ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"Internal ocean" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Internal ocean has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 8 § Internal ocean until a consensus is reached. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary subdivisions on language maps

Hi Kwamikgami, while editing their respective articles, I noticed that the infobox map for English language and the Lusosphere have unnecessary subdivisions that aren't consistent or aesthetically pleasing as maps for other global languages such as Spanish or French. For instance, on the English map, Australia is subdivided despite having the same status throughout all states and the state/provincial boundaries for the U.S. and Canada make it appear similar to national boundaries. I think it would be better to restore the map previously used, as it is consistent with the other global languages and does not show subdivisions in an unnecessary manner. The Lusosphere map meanwhile shows Brazil being subdivided in an excessive manner similar to Australia on the English map despite the whole nation having just one status and should have subdivisons removed, unlike Canada with English. Thank you for your contributions again to these maps. - Moalli (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding protium

To be honest, it seems to me that "hydrogen" is often used instead when one would expect "protium". Sometimes that happens just in symbols, e.g. D/H ratio, but sometimes also in text (e.g. Arblaster's 2018 Selected Values of the Crystallographic Properties of Elements). On the flip side, normally "proton" is used even when "hydron" is meant.

There's some promising 1930s citations from when the H isotopes were being sorted out that could probably help trace the story. Maybe I'll look into it some other time. It may be related to the old tradition with radioelements, back when different isotopes were getting different names (e.g. thorium vs ionium), that the longest-lived isotope got to be the name of the element. (Though for Fr it was admitted that "actinium K" would not do, so Perey suggested another name for the element.) This has caused lots of confusion with the discoveries of Rn and Pa where the first researchers to discover those atomic number values did not find the most stable isotope. In fact, Rn is actually another case where names for different isotopes still survive today. People still write about "thoron" i.e. radon-220, with "radon" sometimes really meaning "radon-222".

The numerical tradition apparently died with tritium, though likely that fits the chronology of when scientists no longer generally knew ancient Greek. Heavier isotopes are known (though frankly I am tempted to just call them resonances), but nobody talks about "tetartium" or "pemptium". The real extra H isotope of interest to chemistry is muonium. Its nucleus is exactly a muon, so probably it should have been "muium", so that muonium could've fit the particle-antiparticle pattern of quarkonium and positronium. Oh well. (I don't think of positronium as a light H isotope because the two bodies are of the same mass. I'd be persuaded to call muonic helium a heavy H isotope, though, since the sole electron essentially sees a ppnnμ nucleus of total charge 2 − 1 = 1. No opinion yet on exotic atoms with hyperons in the nucleus. Theoretically lambda hypernuclei live long enough to have chemistry, but I think we're a while away from technologically probing this!)

Neither did George Gamow's "tralphium" for ³He catch on, though "helion" is still used for that nucleus as opposed to ⁴He as the alpha particle. Which is a funny situation because it's the opposite of H: for He, the less common isotope got the generic name. Personally, I think ³He deserves its own name and symbol, considering its very different condensed-phase behaviour from ⁴He, but it's probably too late now. :)

P.S. in a way, aren't radiocaesium, radiostrontium, and radioiodine implicitly used as names for the famous fission-product isotopes too? Though I've seen radiostrontium meaning both 89 and 90. Hmm. Double sharp (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"Quad(r)ium" is used for 4He. Sorry, don't have time right now to read/answer. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem. (But do you have a source for "quad(r)ium" for ⁴He? If I'm only thinking about the nucleus, I might call it an alpha, though.) Double sharp (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, typo: Quadrium is 4H, not 4He. — kwami (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Rings of Rhea

I wonder why we still have them linked in {{Solar System}}, when the last word on them seems to be that they don't exist. Double sharp (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Our article leaves it as an open issue, and as long as that's true I think it's appropriate to have a link. But maybe w a question mark? — kwami (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on Orcus's classification

I noticed you've changed Orcus's lead section to state that consensus now disfavors Orcus's status as a dwarf planet, and cited a paper. There are a few issues here, and I'm seeking clarification in case of a misunderstanding.

• To my knowledge, the general consensus on Orcus has not recently changed and still remains very uncertain on the nature of Orcus, its geology, and whether or not it is in hydrostatic equilibrium.

• The paper cited does not discuss Orcus or its status at all.

If there was indeed a recent change in attitudes to Orcus's status that I have missed and/or if there is a better-suited paper for this change, please do let me know! ArkHyena (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

There have been a couple papers now listing suspected DP's down to Quaoar and Sedna, and saying that no other known objects appear to qualify. That would include Orcus, Salacia, etc. The authors include ones we used to justify calling Orcus a DP in the first place. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

In which case, I believe those additional papers should be added as well to provide a clearer picture for the case of Orcus's classification. I still would argue against stating this represents a full change in consensus, however. There are likely astronomers who still would argue for Orcus's status as a potential dwarf planet, and a 'couple papers' does not necessarily represent astronomical consensus. In my opinion, it would be more transparent to word it as 'growing evidence' against Orcus's dwarf planet status, especially considering that our general understanding of Orcus's properties, as aforementioned, is rather poor. ArkHyena (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There are very few papers that take a position on this, and few astronomers who are looking into it. So a couple papers coming to a different conclusion, based on new evidence, can indeed be a change in consensus, esp. when it includes authors who were part of the prior consensus. Our prior sources were mostly just someone using the phrase 'DP' without giving any particular argument or evidence. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

In which case, should we remove Orcus from the gallery on the Dwarf planet page, or does 'nine likeliest dwarf planets' still warrant its inclusion? ArkHyena (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's still among the more likely, with Salacia next. It also has a proportionately large moon, like Pluto. And now there's a paper questioning the DP status of Quaoar. (I don't know how it will be received; it's still in pre-print.)

Personally, I suspect that Haumea and Makemake will turn out not to be DPs based on the strict definition of the phrase, just as Mercury isn't a planet. (Well, it is a planet because it's in the IAU list of planets, but it's not a planet because it doesn't meet the IAU definition of a planet.) But the strict definition isn't actually followed by anyone, any more than the one for 'planet' is; they're just there to make the classification look scientific.

So I think the question should be, not which objects are actually DP's (we can't know), but which would most be useful to our readers to illustrate the concept. I think we could argue for including Salacia just as easily as for excluding Orcus and now possibly Quaoar. The next most likely after Salacia haven't even been named, so from a reader-accessibility POV, that would be a natural place to stop.

But IMO it's a judgement call whether we stop at Gonggong, Quaoar, Orcus or Salacia. — kwami (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'd stop at Quaoar for now. The paper arguing that Orcus isn't one thinks that the difference between Sedna/Quaoar/Gonggong and the smaller ones has to do with the chemical evolution, which was kind of the point of having a DP category. Whereas the doubt about Quaoar is whether or not it's in HE, which Mercury proves that nobody actually cares about. Double sharp (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That works for me. I'll miss the "anti-Pluto", though. — kwami (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I miss it too. :) This really seems to be a striking demonstration of the effects of temperature, considering that Interamnia (much further in) might've achieved HE in the past. I guess Sedna might well be nearer the top of the error bar in size. (Though of course, the opposite scenario would make it even more fascinating.) Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I will point out that a recent paper proposes a triaxial shape for Quaoar which is not in equilibrium with its current rotational period (though the paper is still pending publication on A&A). In contrast, as far as I can tell, it still is unclear if Ceres is in HE. Due to these, I believe that strict hydrostatic equilibrium is a poor criterion compared to chemical evolution, as aforementioned. Most astronomers seem to interpret being in hydrostatic equilibrium as a more general state of being gravitationally rounded, anyways. ArkHyena (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

We only had one ref that Orcus was a DP, Grundy et al (2019), and they simply used the phrase 'The dwarf planet Orcus'. Grundy is now a co-author of the new papers that exclude Orcus from the roster of DP's, and this time they give a reason. So I think that does indeed trump the earlier ref. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The point of the paper was that Sedna, Quaoar, and Gonggong differ from all smaller TNOs in a way that suggests that the former melted, differentiated, and went through internal chemical evolution, but the latter did not. By the definition, that implies the latter are not dwarfs. Double sharp (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

New paper on Eris and Makemake

Here. :) Double sharp (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. Been working w heavy water, so the use of deuterated methane is fun. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that the title is a perfect example of what I mentioned a couple of sections above: in practice "H"/"hydrogen" can also mean "protium", when used in opposition to "D"/"deuterium". Perhaps worth a Wiktionary mention? Double sharp (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it, though? Or is it just deuterium as a fraction of total hydrogen? — kwami (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, the Oxford dictionary of earth sciences explicitly says H means ¹H in these constructions. As does the Encyclopedia of Astrobiology. Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. Shouldn't matter which def is used at normal concentrations, but would be important for nuclear engineering. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm, looks like that phrase is only used for astro and geo stuff, so the difference wouldn't matter. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't really matter there. But I've seen "hydrogen" used to mean "protium" implicitly also in crystallography, e.g. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.165.1032 and the Arblaster handbook. Double sharp (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

H for protium in Otterson et al. (1969) "ABSORPTION OF HYDROGEN BY PALLADIUM AND ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY UP TO HYDROGEN-PALLADIUM ATOM RATIOS OF 0.97":

Hydrogen is generally considered to be electronically the same as deuterium. However, some differences in results for the two systems have been observed in the relation between resistivity and temperature and in neutron diffraction experiments. In both PdH_x and PdD_x where x is close to 0.6, a resistivity maximum is found near 50 K. However, PdD_0.6 required much more time for its resistivity to become constant than PdH_0.6 after cooling to a temperature near 50 K.

— kwami (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

IAU designated constellations

Hey, I was going through the page stats and saw your name as of the top editors in the page. Other two top editors aren't active and I was thinking to take it up for FL candidacy. It needs a little work but it's almost there. You wanna join? Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I'm quite busy right now. I don't have the time for any involved projects on WP. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Languages with Linglist code has been nominated for deletion

Category:Languages with Linglist code has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PepperBeast (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you so much for uploading File:Rheasilvia and older basin, Vesta.jpg

JustAGooseGuy (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mawa language (Nigeria)

The article Mawa language (Nigeria) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It seems like this language never existed, the references to it are being removed from linguistic sources, see [4]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Викидим (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It should be a rd to spurious languages. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Sichuanese Pinyin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sichuanese Pinyin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sichuanese Pinyin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Theknightwho (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Same sex adoption / Israel

You reversed my edit on Israel by referring to the existence of sources supporting it, none of which you mentioned. Please, provide reference that is law of the state of Israel the same sex adoption. Thank you. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Read the article. If those claims are wrong, they should be corrected, but regardless summaries should summarize, not contradict. — kwami (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Create a page for the city of Durrës in Navajo Wiki

@Kwamikagami Hi dear Kwamikagami! I have seen that you edit Navajo Wikipedia and you are native to Navajo language. I have a request. Can you create an article for the city of Durrës, the second largest city in Albania, on Navajo Wiki, with short content. This important city hasn't yet an article on Navajo Wiki and it should be there like there are articles for Albania and Tirana, the capital of Albania. I would thank you so much if you will create it. Regards, Suel Stafili70 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Two pronunciation doubts

Hello, you seem to be an expert in linguistics and IPA. I have two doubts.

1. Stephen is reported to have a minority pronunciation [ˈstɛfən] (Philippines?) but there are no reliable sources.
2. Karkade Arabic pronunciation (كركديه) is [karkaˈdiːh], right?

-- Carnby (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Carnby,

Given the voweling <كَرْكَدِيه> and the transcription karkadīh, yes, I expect it to be /karkaˈdiːh/, with final stress. In Arabic, the final heavy syllable is stressed. (The vowels may not be [a], depending on dialect.)

I used to pronounce 'Stephen' that way, but that was a spelling pronunciation because I didn't realize it was just an alt spelling of the name Steven. It wouldn't surprise me that it's become standard somewhere.

I found a Youtuber whose Youtube name is "Stephen not Stefen", which suggests that a lot of people get it wrong. And of course there's 'Stephanie'.

In the Philippines, names may retain their English spellings but be assimilated to Tagalog or the local language phonetically, and I wouldn't be surprised if pronunciation irregularities like this got leveled out. But I haven't been able to find 'Stephen' specifically. Tagalog Wiktionary unfortunately doesn't have an entry. — kwami (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of M-T pronouns for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M-T pronouns is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-T pronouns until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Proto-Human, Nostratic, and WP:FRINGE

Please remember, since you seem to be editing along these lines and have a counterfactual statement on your userpage, that neither Proto-Human nor the techniques used to reconstruct it are taken seriously within linguistics. Edits along those lines need to take WP:FRINGE into account and be made carefully, especially if it accidentally ends up reading as advocacy for those theories. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The existence of the M-T pronoun pattern is not FRINGE. Some of the conclusions drawn from it are. — kwami (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it was, though it certainly fails WP:N considering there's the source you utilized and a singular other paper. It doesn't appear to have any wider significance within linguistics at present. I'm more referring to the conclusions you drew and this WP:PROFRINGE statement on your user page:

By comparing basic vocabulary across the established families of oral languages of the world, we have been able to reconstruct the Proto-Human language. We find that all reconstructed words are *na. An extension of this method to additional lexical items (in other basic word lists) finds that those items also reconstruct to *na. We therefore conclude that the ancestral human population used the word *na for everything.

I don't mean this to give you a hard time at all, I just don't necessarily know from some of your edits and this statement if you're aware of the actual acceptance of those theories. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Nostratic (and Amerind, which depends on a similar pattern of pronouns) are definitely FRINGE. Yet these patterns have been noticed for over a century, and people have struggled to explain them. I don't see how a fringe hypothesis could be notable, yet the real evidence provided for it not be notable. We need to understand the evidence if we want to be able to evaluate the claims that depend on them.

As for your claim of PROFRINGE statements, you've failed to see the sarcasm. — kwami (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

But this isn’t evidence for those theories. That it’s claimed to be evidence can be thrown in the large pile of things Nostraticists et al consider to be evidence that nobody takes seriously. That’s why it’s a WP:PROFRINGE concern.

Either way, I wasn’t intending to be difficult on this and sorry if it came across that way. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is the evidence they present, not the evidence you accept. And we can't debunk those claims without a consideration of the evidence. Not that we should be advocating debunking either, but the claims can't be evaluated by the reader without consideration of the evidence. If we don't present the evidence, then the only ones that do are the advocates. If we only present the theories and their advocates, then we're engaging in FRINGE by omission. — kwami (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

regarding whether the halogens all rhyme or not

Huh, apparently the /-aɪn/ pronunciation is older. In James Knowles' 1835 pronunciation dictionary, both iodine and fluorine have a long i (never mind that the spelling varies between iodine, fluorine and iodin, fluorin.)

Unfortunately, the page with chlorine is missing from this copy. And instead of bromine, we have brome, a direct borrowing from French.

It does raise the question of when precisely the /-iːn/ pronunciation came into the picture, and how it became the most common one for F and Cl. (I have the impression that for iodine, /-aɪn/ is more common in AmE than BrE. Google seems to confirm this.) Double sharp (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe about the time the capital of Peru changed from /aɪ/ to /iː/? — kwami (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a copy on GBooks. 'Chlorine' has the ee vowel. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that is pretty weird. My current working hypothesis is that Cl was better-known than the other halogens by then, because it was already known as a bleaching agent (as stated in Knowles' definition). But it's just a guess. Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they already had both pronunciations, but only one was chosen for the dict? — kwami (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Could well be! Double sharp (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Prenasal/Post-nasal sound transcription, and Yele sounds acc to sources

Sorry, but you are wrong about the prenasal sounds according to Levinson (2022). They are never transcribed as voiceless, they are always voiced. And regarding the transcription of the prenasal/post-nasal sounds, yes they are always transcribed with a superscript. Don’t believe me? Then take a look at the IPA. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Levinson transcribes them in different places as both phonemically voiced and unvoiced. I think it might be more straightforward to transcribe them as voiced, as you have done.

"Take a look at the IPA" is not a ref. They are usually not transcribed with superscripts, and positing 4 different types of prenasalization and 4 different types of nasal release is not supported by our sources. That works phonetically but not phonemically. It's also harder to read. — kwami (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The only time you see “unvoiced” is when he writes the orthography. But both phonemically, and phonetically they are voiced. Henderson (1995) also transcribes them the same.

But you are still wrong about the prenasal/post-nasal transcription. They *are* transcribed with superscripts. I’m sure you have seen it quite a lot within phonetic and phonemic transcriptions. And whether the sources don’t use superscripts, or 4 types of prenasalization/nasal release is irrelevant.

According to Prenasalized consonant in the IPA, “in the IPA, a tie bar may be used to specify that these are single segments: ⟨m͜b, n͜d, ŋ͡ɡ⟩. Another common transcription practice is to make the nasal superscript: ⟨ᵐb, ⁿd, ᵑɡ⟩. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. He writes them as unvoiced in some of the phonemic-IPA consonant tables, as voiced in others.

So you concede that superscripts are not "the" way to transcribe prenasalized stops? That's good, but you shouldn't cite me for what the IPA is. I'm not a RS. Cite the IPA. — kwami (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

“Some of the phonemic-IPA consonant tables.” No, there should only be one standard table that we use, and that is the one where they are transcribed as their main sound, which is voiced. Not more than one consonant table

And yes I did cite the IPA, and you are just refusing to look at the source. That is what it states on prenasalized consonants, I don’t know where you are insisting otherwise. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And what I cited said that they can be transcribed with a tie-bar or a superscript, in the IPA. Using standard consonant symbols like <mb, nd, ŋɡ> is not “the” way to transcribe them, and is only used unambiguously by different authors. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You never cited the IPA. For a citation, you need an author, title, date and page number. And don't cite me. To cite the IPA, you need to cite the IPA.

We cannot use one table, because the inventory is split across multiple tables. You can write Levinson that he wrote his grammar wrong, but that's not relevant here.

Levinson gives the singly articulated stops as /mp nt ṇṭ ŋk/ on p.42 and the doubly articulated stops as /nmtp ṇmṭp ŋmkp/ on p.43.

Anyway, I've already conceded that your way is probably best, so I don't know why you continue to misrepresent the source. — kwami (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, the reason for not using the tie bar for NC and CN consonants is that, when they're doubly articulated, that would create a mess of 3 overlapping tie bars per consonant, e.g. ⟨n̪͡m͡d̪͡b⟩.

We might be able to improve that by using an under-tie for the NC or CN part and an over-tie for the double articulation, or vice versa, e.g. ⟨n̪͡m͜d̪͡b⟩ or ⟨n̪͜m͡d̪͜b⟩. But that still looks rather messy. — kwami (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I strongly believe that using a superscript is the best option, because it looks less messy and less ambiguous.

But using the chart as per Levinson (2022:42-43) is pointless. That does not represent the true sounds of the prenasalized consonants. He states “Prenasalized consonants (such as /mb/) are however voiced, but post-nasalized stops are initially voiceless”. Nowhere does he actually state that the prenasals are ever heard as voiceless. Fdom5997 (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, you apparently don't know the difference between phonemic and phonetic. The oral stops are also 'lightly' voiced between vowels. So what? This is a phonemic transcription. We could use signs of the zodiac for all it matters.

Anyway, I've already conceded that it's probably better (because it's more accessible to our readers) to transcribe NC with letters for voiced stops, as you prefer, and restored your edits doing just that. — kwami (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Listing prenasalized-voiced sounds is not just phonetic. Even Levinson (2022) himself lists them as phonemes on page 45. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You're not listening. I have no problem with listing the phonemic inventory in our sources. I have a problem with you claiming phonemic distinctions that do not exist in our sources just because you think it's pretty. — kwami (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t “think it’s pretty”, it is just incredibly misleading to list them as “voiceless” when even the sources themselves say that they are always voiced. *You’re* not listening, and you’re the one who’s claiming nonexistent phonemic distinctions! Fdom5997 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I was talking about the superscript nasals, which you apparently only want because you think it looks better. I don't know why you continue to harp on the voicing when there's no disagreement about it. — kwami (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course the superscript nasals look better, because they are approved by the IPA. You're method is not, and it is too ambiguous. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, can we just settle on the nasal superscript? What is the big deal if they are transcribed this way. You just don't want it because you personally don't agree with it. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Where are they "approved by the IPA"? I've repeatedly asked for a citation, and you evidently don't actually have one.

It seems that you're just making stuff up, and projecting your own biases rather than owning up to them. — kwami (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well how about you show me a source that proves that your way of transcribing them is correct. I'll wait.. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't be an ass. You've already conceded that it is. But if you like, check out the Tukang Besi chart in the IPA Handbook.

BTW, arguing for a change by demanding that your opponent prove why you shouldn't is not generally a productive approach. It is a good way to have people ignore you for not being a serious editor. — kwami (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, because you don't have a source either. At least I have some information (that you wrote!) to back me up, you clearly don't. So therefore, we should settle on the superscript nasal transcription. Like it, or not. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's see if I understand: The IPA Handbook is not a source for the IPA because you disagree with it. Your lack of any sources doesn't matter because you set an ultimatum, and that's what counts. Even though you don't understand the WP article that you're using instead of a source. So, yeah, talking with you appears to be a waste of time. I'm done. Good bye, and stay off my page. — kwami (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Boma dialect

@Kwamikagami: Hirayama (1966)'s 琉球方言の総合的研究 talks about the prosody of the Tokunoshima Boma (母間) dialect on page 151-152. However, I am fine if you leave the redirect as redirecting only to Teke language. Chuterix (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there's nothing about that on the Toku-no-Shima page, and it's not in the list of dialects, so people won't know why a link directs them there. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Hadza people, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but probably not. — kwami (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries Kowal2701 (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Question mark

No the question mark is not needed here. What makes you insist that it is? Fdom5997 (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Our source that it's not clear if it's a distinct phoneme. Parentheses only mean that it's marginal or found in loans. — kwami (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Check the reliability

Hi. You have recently removed a para in the page: 'Telugu Language', stating that it is not a reliable source. I am sharing an alternate source and I request you to check if this can be considered. If yes, I shall revert the edit by adding this as the citation.

Source: (Page no.4 from)

https://rmrl.in/wp-content/plugins/book_lists/admin/pdf_books/38%20-%20Harappan%20Heritage%20of%20Andhra_%20A%20New%20Interpretation%20(2010).pdf

Waiting for your reply. Thank you. Anandwiki.ind (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not peer-reviewed. Given that it appears to be speculation built on sand (we don't even know if the harappan 'script' was a writing system, let alone that it was in a Dravidian language), I'd want something better per FRINGE and WP:RS. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is not about whether Harappan script was Dravidian origin or not.

The source only tells that Mahendra Pallava did lay few words of Telugu in cave inscriptions and that Iravatham Mahadevan used them in his study, or 'speculation' or whatever. I'm not making any statement regarding the Indus script. Anandwiki.ind (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still FRINGE material and not a RS. You could try using their source directly. — kwami (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "their source directly"? Anandwiki.ind (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Cite the source that they use. I'm assuming that the inscriptions and their analysis as Telugu have been published somewhere. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Fine. I shall use the sources which include:

1. The original data of the inscriptions

2. The original data of the word nāgabu (but this is in non-English language)

Will it be fine? Anandwiki.ind (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be in English, they just need to be from a reliable source (e.g. a secondary reference used by paleographers), not a website or someone's personal research. — kwami (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't draw any conclusion that "Harappan was proved to be Dravidian based on these words".

Rather, the presence of Telugu words as the titles for Mahendra Pallava in his cave inscriptions were some of the important things in Telugu history. That's the only point I would mention. Anandwiki.ind (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure. But you need a reliable source. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Vocabulary comparisons

Hey Kwami, first of all, thanks for putting in the effort to make sure that Wikipedia articles stay encyclopedic, clean, and tidy. However, I strongly disagree that lexical comparisons in Papuan language articles are unencyclopedic. If you look at Bill Foley's chapter on Papuan languages of the Sepik region and many other sources, vocabulary comparison tables containing no more than 30 words are included because so little is known about those langauges. Oftentimes, basic vocabulary (anywhere from 20-100 words) and pronouns are all that we know about these languages, with very little grammatical information available.

These vocabulary tables strongly complement Ross's pronoun tables.

I know that Wikipedia is not Wiktionary - which was why I included no more than 30 words - but sample words for the world's least documented, most obscure language families are very important. Foley (2018) included tables comparing about 20-30 words, but his chapter was still encyclopedic and didn't get turned into a dictionary.

Such lists would not be very suitable for major languages such as German or Luxembourgish, but they are absolutely essential for Papuan languages, which are undoubtedly the world's least known languages. Wikipedia articles about sparsely documented Amerindian languages also list the few words that are attested in those languages. It would be completely inappropriate to remove all those words on the basis of Wikipedia's NODICT guideline, which is a guideline, not a set-in-stone policy, meant to discourage the creation of dictionary-type stubs, rather than to dissuade editors from including useful vocabulary comparison tables in linguistics articles.

And if you really want to delete these painstakingly compiled and highly useful tables, please move them to Wiktionary appendices first.

Pinging @Austronesier: and @Womtelo: for opinions. Please consider supporting to keep these vocabulary tables, as they are of utmost importance to historical linguists. For now, I am restoring the tables, since I am certain that I have set up a strong case for why these tables should be kept. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 22:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a distinction between brief encyclopedic basic vocabulary tables and lengthy dictionary-type vocabulary tables that do not belong in encyclopedic entries. Please consult language survey articles and chapters to see what I mean. Tables comparing up to about 30 non-cognate words are encyclopedic and typically do not need to be shuffled into appendices. In language survey papers, articles, and books, non-encyclopedic tables such as Swadesh lists with 100-200 words usually get moved into appendices. The vocabulary tables that I have included in Papuan language family articles are completely encyclopedic. Thus, there is no reason to remove them without proper discussion. Since this is contested by multiple editors including both me and Womtelo, I strongly do not recommend removing any of the tables for now. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 22:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Sagotreespirit. I agree with your arguments here (and on my Talk page). The tables in question represent abundant efforts by earlier contributors (not necessarily by myself), and I find it a bit blunt to delete so much data so fast, without any discussion or search for consensus. I'm talking about both East Papuan and Baining languages, to cite the first two I noticed; but I now see there are many more pages that Kwami had unilaterally decided to empty of their lexical content; I find that unreasonable.

In fact, I think it's all the more useful to keep such lexical lists, that precisely the small language families in question are still being actively researched. As you (Sago) said, we wouldn't need such tables under entries on German or Dutch; but researchers & students will find it very useful to have easy access to well-structured lexical lists on WP (as long as the data itself is sourced and not OR); this can only help science grow, much easier than if people were forced to retrieve every data point individually.

Thanks also to @Kwami for constructively taking part in the discussion. Best -- Womtelo (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC).

If the point is to use WP as a repository for raw data, there are other places to do that -- Wiktionary appendices, Wikibooks, etc. That's not the point of an encyclopedia, so all of these lists are unencyclopedic. Doesn't matter how well referenced they are, that's not the purpose of WP. Foley may do that in his publications, but those serve a different purpose.

I don't have a problem with such vocab lists in the individual language articles (what you call 'brief encyclopedic basic vocabulary tables'), and if you moved all the data there I wouldn't have a problem with it. But what does it have to do with the family? For the average reader, nothing.

If they're cognate sets, sure. I left those in. Either just the reconstructed forms, or better yet those forms with reflexes in a sampling of languages, along with the same for phonemes. That would tell the reader something. It's also okay IMO to list cognate sets without a reconstruction, if we have a RS they are cognate but the reconstruction hasn't been done. There were a few cases of that, and I left those in too.

What's the point of putting the lists for various languages together? It can only be for comparison. But what are we comparing? There's no explanation, and we shouldn't expect the reader to do the historical comparative work. Also, how is the reader supposed to know which words are cognate, and which are not, when they're all scrambled together? Some seem obvious, but sometimes even obvious resemblances turn out to be coincidental (e.g. English much and Spanish mucho). That occurs in New Guinea as well: e.g. the Bunaq word for 'hand' is ton. If we placed that in a row with East Timor tana, Alor-Pantar tan and Kalamang tan, the reader would naturally assume that it's related, but it's a false cognate. It took Usher years to figure that out, and it would be entirely unreasonable to expect the reader to figure that out just by looking at the table.

Sometimes words that are cognate don't look related (e.g. the Armenian word for 'three'), and the reader might therefore assume the words in each row are all cognate (otherwise why list them together?). Worse yet, sometimes these word lists include the reconstructed forms in the left column, which essentially tells the reader that they are reflexes of that form when in fact many are not. So these lists are useless at best to the reader, and sometimes highly misleading. Their only use is as raw data, and again that's not what an encyclopedia is for.

We could link to the original DB's in an external links section, or move these lists to Wikt or Wikibooks and link to them there. — kwami (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

As an analogy, in our astronomy articles we give orbital information. For some objects the orbits are highly uncertain. These vocab tables are the equivalent of giving the raw positional data of multiple astronomical observations, including some that might not even be of the correct object, and expecting the reader to work out the orbit from that. Instead, we rely on the experts to calculate the orbit, and if the raw data is relevant somehow, we can link to it. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, Sago, you ask me to do your work for you. If you want to make this information available, that's a task you've taken on for yourself, and it's up to you to carry it out. I might help you if I saw the value in it, but that is irrelevant when it comes to deleting unencyclopedic content. You can always go back into the article history and recover it, so deletion does not need to wait for it to be transferred. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers Kwami, but I'm afraid I disagree with your arguments. If you tell me that a family called XXX exists and has 15 members, that is very little information and is telling us nothing. But if you give me a list of 20 words in these 15 members, now that’s what many readers are looking for. Anyone interested in the existence of a family will also want to get a good idea, at a glance right there on the page of the family, of how internally diverse that family is. That is extremely useful information that is telling so much more on that subgroup, than just a name and a list of languages. Some families are terribly homogenous like Nuclear Polynesian, while others are surprisingly heterogenous; and just a lexical list can already tell us so much.

People sufficiently curious to get interested in Baining or Leonhard Schultze languages will be smart enough to know what you're saying here about false cognates and the rest. And if they mistake a list of translation equivalents for cognate sets, so what? Is that reason enough to deprive the rest of us of the valuable data? We can easily add a disclaimer template that will remind people that list of translation equivalents are not cognate sets, and voilà the job's done. But it is foolish to delete so much useful information, which target readers (students, researchers) actually need badly, just because some imaginary reader might interpret them wrongly. I find that a very strange way of reasoning, really.

In sum, these painstakingly-created tables are very useful, and much welcome on pages of families -- much more so than on entries of individual languages. (Perhaps one thing that could be done, would be to make them collapsible; but I don't think that's necessary.) -- Womtelo (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC).

That's the purpose of cognate sets. As I said, I agree those are encyclopedic. But random sets of words that we falsely imply are related is misinformation and do not belong. If they're useful to the historical linguist, fine, but put them where they belong.

And they don't tell us anything about the family, and they do not show us how diverse the family is. For that they would have to be cognate sets. I could create a list of random words that makes the Romance languages look like dialects of a single language, or like a collection of unrelated isolates. Neither would serve any useful purpose. In fact, Serbo-Croatian and Hindustani speakers do this all the time to 'prove' that their languages are either identical or completely unrelated. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you're not getting it. If you only accept a list of cognate sets, then you're forcing a view of unity in the family, which is not necessarily a fair representation of its diversity; you're doing precisely what your Hindustani and Serbo-Croatian speakers do all the time, namely cherry-pick examples to suit an agenda. What is needed is precisely the opposite: random lists of words (à la Swadesh lists), absolutely avoiding the criterion that they should be cognate sets. What we need are simply lists of translation equivalents within that family, whether or not they're mutually cognate.

So in Romance you'd have aller, andare, ir for 'go'; bras, braccio, brazo for 'arm'; femme, donna, mujer for 'woman', etc. No-one in their right mind will be so foolish as to believe these are cognate sets! Why do you assume that will be "falsely implied"? That's just wrong. (and there can always be a warning message/ disclaimer in small characters reminding people that the list is not of cognate sets.)

Such lists would provide an excellent overview of the internal homogeneity vs. heterogeneity of a lg family: both (1) diversity due to sound changes within cognate sets, and (2) diversity due to lexical replacement across cognate sets. If you only display cognate sets, then you can show #1 but not #2, and that becomes a cherry-picked sample biased towards homogeneity. For the purpose of showcasing a family's internal homo- / heterogeneity, it is thus crucial that there should not be any requirement of cognacy. (In addition, color coding or something could identify cognate sets, a bit like in this Romance table).

Ideally, the list of meanings would be constant across families (like Swadesh, but shorter; perhaps 15 or 20 meanings of basic vocab); but for some little-documented families we would provide whatever small lexical info there is. -- Womtelo (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC).

For better visibility to the community, I suggest to bring this up in WT:LANG. Kwami and also, @Womtelo and Sagotreespirit: as you already have had the opportunity to shape your thoughts in this discussion, you can each probably repeat them in a condensed form there (without reproducing the back-and-forth, at least to this point). My 2 cents in brief here. I have seen many tables that go much beyond 20 items. I find them way too massive, visually dominating and literally pushing our painstakingly-created prose (c'mon, what's painstaking about retyping wordlists, often to the point of producing blatant copyvios?) to invisbility. Frankly, I hate them ;) So ~15 items per table, and all tables headed by at least two or three lines of parsable prose with substantial content (NB: wordlists of languages not known to our readers are per se imparsable and only serve an "impressionistic" purpose). That's what I consider the absolute maximum for a tertiary source like Wikipedia, anything beyond that is not really helpful for our readers. FWIW, collapsed tables don't appear collapsed on many mobile browers, thus in the very case when navigatability matters most.

Tables don't have to be cognate tables, but for established language families and subgroups, cognate tables give a better feel of what these languages have in common; after all, these languages by their very nature are relevant to the topic of the article (= the language family) since they do share cognates with regular sound correspondences. In order to capture diversity, a cognate table can serve the purpose as well. E.g. for Austronesian languages you often see those silly "mata, mata, mata, mata, mata...lima, lima, lima, lima, lima"-tables which may lead naive readers to think that Austronesian languages are alike all over the oceans; ideally, we should present them also cognate sets like Paiwan sapuy, Palauan ngau, West Damar oso, and Kusaiean e :) Ok, not all that brief, but that's how I feel about it (= my editorial judgement). –Austronesier (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, lists up to 20 or so basic items, as long as we make it clear that they're not cognate sets. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The current lists are fine. Bill Foley uses 20-30 basic items, and that's not even enough to satisfy the rigorous standards of many historical linguists. I wouldn't go up to 40 (=ASJP). It's not like huge Swadesh lists are completely bloating up the articles. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 03:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And if you really want to remove the tables, please move to Wiktionary first and link to them. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 03:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary

If you are insistent on removing Papuan vocabulary tables, please move them to Wiktionary first. Please don't completely remove useful comparative tables just because you think they look out of place. Plenty of people (me, Womtelo, the NGW guys, and many others) find them to be incredibly useful, even if you don't. At least insert Wiktionary links to transwikied tables if you really want Wikipedia articles to cater solely to syntacticians and be nearly completely devoid of useful lexical data. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 02:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to do your work for you. It's up to you to preserve unencyclopedic information elsewhere. Anything you added here is preserved in the page history and can easily be recovered.

You gave criteria for inclusion, which were already stretching appropriate content for an encyclopedia, but then insisted on violating your own conditions. As others have told you, lists of random vocab belong on wikt (perhaps as an appendix), not on WP. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not violate my own conditions. Your decisions of exactly which tables to exclude were arbitrary and not sufficiently explained. Nevertheless, I will copy everything to Wiktionary and will provide interwiki links and templates from Wikipedia, because this is just going on forever. If you want to remove any more comparative tables, then please let me know what you have removed. It is very time-consuming to compile these tables, and even more so to constantly have to restore them and make sure that no errors have crept in due to your constant trimming. Please at least try to be more considerate like all of the other users by carefully discussing your concerns first, instead of repeatedly deleting entire sections across all Papuan language family articles without properly notifying anyone. In any case, I sincerely appreciate your prolific contributions to Wikipedia. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 04:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You said 15 to 20 lexical items, not 40 to 60. It's supposed to be a sample, not an exhaustive vocabulary. Wiktionary is where you post vocabularies.

You have been properly notified, and you have no consensus to turn Wikipedia into a dictionary. — kwami (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

None of the tables have 40 to 60 items. They all have 30 items maximum. These are not exhaustive vocabularies. I know what's supposed to be encyclopedic and what's supposed to be dictionary-length. The Languages and Linguistics of the New Guinea Area (2018) and many other encyclopedic handbooks have plenty of word lists of approximately 30 items in their chapters. Anything longer than the word lists in the ASJP or Global Lexicostatistical Database would be dictionary-like, and I'm not including any of those in Papuan language family articles.

I am not turning Wikipedia articles into dictionary entries. I am balancing out phylogenetic trees, classification histories, geographical distributions, and everything else with vocabulary tables. This is fully encyclopedic. Wikipedia articles don't have to be restricted to dense grammars with completely no word lists in order to be encyclopedic. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 05:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying you're pushing for only twice what you agreed to. But they go up to 50, and completely dominate the articles. That's exactly what you said you were not trying to do.

You've brought this up for discussion, and did not get consensus, but still insist that you're in the right because that's what you want.

Your strawman arguments ("with completely no word lists") show that you're arguing in bad faith. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who isn't willing to collaborate. — kwami (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Look, I am collaborating and cooperating now by agreeing to copy the tables to Wiktionary. I don't need to add any more tables, and you don't need to delete any more tables. We're both fine with this status quo. Moving on. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 05:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct. I don't need to delete any more tables. I already removed the ones that violate the conditions you agreed to and overwhelm the text. Now that you're copying the info to Wikt, you shouldn't need to continue to edit-war over restoring them here.

BTW, if you're dissatisfied the results of the discussion, you're welcome to open it again. Or ask Austronesier their opinion. They might be more tolerant than I am. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sagotreespirit Just FYI, Wiktionary is not a dumping ground for things that have been removed from Wikipedia. I have no view on whether these should or shouldn't be included (on WP or Wikt), but they need to pass Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion, which means they need to be verifiable, and included in accordance with our entry layout; what we don't want are random tables of vocabulary. Theknightwho (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: Thanks, I am aware that Wiktionary lists should be properly formatted as appendices, and should preferably be standardized Swadesh lists or their subsets so that they can be consistent with existing lists compiled by other Wiktionary users. The lists will have to be redone and not simply copied as-is from Wikipedia. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Metelko alphabet: thank you

Thank you for your work on the article Metelko alphabet. It is much appreciated. Doremo (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. — kwami (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

regarding Talk:Ganymede (moon)#Name globalisation

IIRC, aren't the two scripts for Serbian supposed to be in one-to-one correspondence in all cases, even proper names? So on sr.wp we read about "Volfgang Amadeus Mocart" (at least once I select "Latinica"), whereas on sh.wp, hr.wp, and bs.wp the original German spelling is retained. Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Though interestingly, it seems that some articles for asteroids don't get automatically converted: sr:264 Libussa doesn't get converted, but sr:265 Ана (265 Anna) does. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Ideally they're one-to-one, but that would only be if they've been assimilated to Gaj's Latin alphabet. If they retain their original Latin spelling, and there's a mismatch to the Gaj alphabet values, auto-conversion to Cyrillic won't work. Officially it should be assimilated to Gaj's, but maybe not in everyday usage.

But that's only within Serbian. There's no particular reason the spelling should be the same in Croatian or Bosnian. — kwami (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I referred to Croatian and Bosnian to see different situations where this doesn't apply and there are different rules.

I'd likewise guess, from seeing those two asteroid names, that assimilated names are respelled in Latin so that the Cyrillic will remain in 1-1 correspondence, whereas unassimilated names may keep their original spelling. But are there that many Serbian astronomy papers, that would mention the modern names, to be sure? Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If they're unassimilated, I wonder if they appear in Latin script in Cyrillic documents, the way in English we sometimes retain Greek or Hebrew script. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I've seen Latin script retained in Chinese texts in this way too, though can't remember exactly where. Double sharp (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

taxonomic nomenclature, maybe. — kwami (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, examples of that are easy to find on zh.wp indeed. So it probably was that.

Also foreign personal names are sometimes given without transcription into Chinese characters, e.g. zh:智利南洋杉#發現及命名. Double sharp (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There's more orthographic assimilation into languages with non-Latin alphabets, because it's necessary. Same with Arabic loans into languages that use something other than the Arabic script. If you don't have to assimilate a name, people generally won't bother, so the orthography gives little clue to the pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you call a case like Polish bohr for bohrium? The original spelling is taken over directly, but the h is prescribed to be pronounced as /x/ following Polish spelling conventions (even though that's not how Bohr is read in Danish), so that it doesn't collide with bor for boron. Double sharp (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You mean taking a spelling pronunciation to be prescriptive? I don't know. You get that sometimes in Esperanto, where e.g. English 'team' is adopted as teamo, with both orthographic vowels pronounced, to distinguish it from timo 'fear'. I'm not aware of other languages that do that, but I imagine it's not uncommon. — kwami (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Languages retain redundant Latin inflectional endings for the same reason. — kwami (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was after.

It now makes me wonder why Polish doesn't have any suffix at all for its element names, e.g. iryd for iridium. I should probably look into it. (Which is painfully reminding me that I still haven't gotten around to the history of Czech chemical nomenclature. :D) Double sharp (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

They were adopted as masculine inanimate instead of retaining the Latin neuter. Who knows why. — kwami (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it would take more research and reading old Polish texts than I'm willing to or have the time to do right now. Especially not when my command of that language has gone totally rusty. :)

Though while we're mentioning central European element names: I do find it pretty funny that in Hungarian, astatine is asztácium with the -ium suffix that the lighter halogens don't have. (And likewise tennessine is tennesszium.) Well, whatever the reason was, this was chosen well: 2013 calculations suggest bulk astatine would metallise at standard conditions (ignoring that its own decay heat would vaporise itself)! But I find it chronologically doubtful that they were thinking about that, to say the least. :D Double sharp (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Your dispute has been nominated to the "Dispute resolution noticeboard"

Your dispute has been nominated to the "Dispute resolution noticeboard" See please Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Nivkh alphabets Modun (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Update polls

Hi, can you update the polls at viwiki if you have free time, thanks  Rafael Ronen  08:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Schiermonnikoog Frisian moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Schiermonnikoog Frisian. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

But it does have sources, and now we have a sourced language that is missing from WP. I'm moving it back and removing the 'no sources' tag. — kwami (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories Citizenship versus British Citizenship

Hi, Kwami.

I replied in the "List of UN non-self-governing states" talk page to your comments on acquisition of British citizenship by British Overseas Territories citizens, and clarified some misconceptions in your statements. Here is basically what I wrote:

Everyone who was a British Overseas Territory citizen (BOTC) immediately before the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 came into force was automatically granted British citizenship in 2002 (except for the BOTCs with a connection to the Akrotiri base in Cyprus) . Thereafter, any person born in a BOT (again except Akrotiri) to at least one parent who is either a British citizen or a settled immigrant in the territory acquires British citizenship automatically at birth . These are exactly the same rules currently in force for acquisition of British citizenship by birth by people born in the UK, just replacing "settled in the territory" by "settled in the United Kingdom".

An important point, however, is that, unlike the US unincorporated territories, the BOTs have control over immigration into their respective territories, including immigration of other British nationals. British Overseas Territories citizenship (BOTC) actually exists as a subnational citizenship within British nationality, meaning that it is possible, therefore, for someone to immigrate into a BOT and be naturalized there as a BOTC rather than a British citizen. That is also the reason why there are actually different types of "British passports" such as a British passport (United Kindom), a British passport (Bermuda), a British passport (Cayman Islands), and so on. By contrast, an immigrant in Puerto Rico for example can only be naturalized as a US citizen, never as a "Puerto Rican citizen", which is a status that doesn't really exist or, if it does, it exists only in the same way as being a "citizen" of California, or Florida, or any U.S. state. Similarly there is only one type of regular US passport available to all US citizens whether they are from Puerto Rico or any other US state or unincorporated territory.

A person who is naturalized as a BOTC in a BOT after 2002, unlike a natural-born BOTC with qualifying parents, does not automatically acquire British citizenship, which may be the situation you were referring to in your comments. Nevertheless, BOTCs who are not already British citizens by birth are allowed to apply for British citizenship by registration, which is possible, I think, without any UK residence requirement . Registration in this case is at the discretion of the UK Home Secretary, but it is normally granted if the person is "of good character" and not otherwise barred by some other legal criteria from becoming a British citizen, so that is not a major issue anymore either.

To make things even more complex, however, neither British citizenship nor British Overseas Territories citizenship actually guarantees right of abode or right to vote for example in a BOT. In fact, what guarantees right of abode or right to vote in a BOT is "belonger status". And while both British citizenship and BOTC are regulated by UK law, "belonger status" is regulated by domestic territory law and is defined in each BOT independently. That actually underscores the autonomy/sovereignty of the BOTs, rather than their "colonial status", contrary again to the US unicorporated territories where any US citizen has right of abode and automatically becomes a local voter once he or she takes up residence in the territory.

EDIT: By the way, the term "UK citizenship" which you used in your comments does not exist in British law. There is only "British citizenship", which is a form of British nationality. A British Overseas Territories citizen who is also a British citizen may carry two different passports as a British national although he or she has to enter the UK with a "British citizen passport", which is the British passport (UK).

2804:14C:165:836E:0:0:0:C265 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all that info. The situation does indeed seem to have improved markedly, when the only BOT which conferred British citizenship were those that were claimed by another country [Argentina and Spain]. I'll respond there since you don't have an accountt to ping. — kwami (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

References